Network News

Get the Morning Fix and the new Afternoon Fix delivered to your inbox or mobile device for easy access to the top political stories of the day. All you need is one click to get Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix!

Giuliani's First TV Ad

After months of waiting and speculating, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani will begin running television ads in support of his presidential campaign on Thursday, starting off with a 60-second commercial in New Hampshire that touts his turnaround of New York City.

Let's take a look:

Unlike any of the other candidates running for the Republican nomination, Giuliani doesn't need to introduce himself to voters -- especially Republican primary voters. His voice, which opens the ad as images of a downtrodden New York City are shown, is instantly recognizable. It's a major advantage for Giuliani; he is one of the most famous people in the world and, therefore, his campaign needs to spend almost no time introducing him to voters or explaining why he is running.

The ad's core is New York City -- not surprising since that city and its turnaround under Giuliani's leadership is the organizing principle of his campaign. The argument, made in this ad and in Giuliani's stump speech, is that if he can change the culture of New York City he can do the same nationwide.

There's one other fascinating element of the ad: an acknowledgement by Giuliani of his flaws. "I believe I've been tested in a way in which the American people can look to me," Giuliani says. "They're not going to find perfection but they're going to find somebody who has dealt with crisis almost on a regular basis and has had results."

Throughout the campaign Giuliani has emphasized that he is someone with faults, someone who has made mistakes but also someone who has performed under fire. The ad reinforces that idea -- suggesting that Giuliani's strengths far outweigh the weaknesses that his opponents are sure to bring up over the next 50 days.

Now that Giuliani has begun his television campaign in earnest, one of the final elements of the campaign will take shape. Will Giuliani's ads move numbers in New Hampshire and wherever else he decides to take to the airwaves? Or is so much already known about him that Giuliani's ads won't have the sort of impact we've seen from the dozens of commercials run by former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.)?

We'll tackle that questions and much more in tomorrow's look at the state of the Republican race with 50 days left before the Iowa caucuses. For our take on where the Democratic race stands, click here.

"I really hope you're being sarcastic. But I get the feeling you aren't." - Blarg

Witty, but deluded. Time magazine named RG the Person of the Year after the 9/11 attacks, which is enough to put anybody in the international spotlight. Of course, that doesn't really matter if you're biased in favor of liberalism, as you've proven yourself to be.

44% of American households have opened their homes to relatives or friends faced with homelessness this past year, according to a Gallup survey. The economy sucks. Ask Rudy and Hillary how they can support outsourcing and guest workers and amnesty for illegals when almost 1/3 of the citizens of this country are facing economic disaster.

44% of American households hav opened their homes to relatives or friends faced with himelessness this past year. The economy sucks. Ak Rudy and Hillary how they can support outsourcing and guest workers and illegal when almost 1/3 of this country is facing economic disaster.

Of course, Zmeun. A city council; that's what I meant. Same idea applies, though.

So Rudy was merely a beneficiary of the '90s, eh? You'd say Clinton was too, I suppose? Neither guy had anything to do with any of the successes associated with his administration?

For those who say mayors don't get to be president without some larger job first: NYC's budget in FY02 was about 29 Billion dollars. In 2002, Texas' budget was about 20 billion. In FY05 (can't find 02 numbers), Arkansas's budget was about 13.5 billion.

I know budgets aren't everything, but it's a useful proxy for experience in managing relative sizes of government.

I am going to agree with kingofzouk here, attacking Giuliani because of his transvestite habit or failed marriages, infidelities and kids who hate his guts should be reserved for the Republicans.

I do not care much about his personal life and think it should be a separate matter from his potential governance. I can keep my self-respect by declining to vote for him just because he is a deranged fascist opportunist, not because of his personal problems.

Hmm, Kerik was in "good standing" even though it now looks like he was taking kick-backs from the mob DURING Rudy's administration? And he was still in good standing later, when recommended to lead our country's defense of the homeland? Ha, who knew. Here I was thinking that was bad judgment, but I guess not.

I won't even get into the social conservative stuff, other than to note that you clearly don't speak for that segment of the party. Pat Robertson can say whatever he wants, and usually does. I for one feel confident that a Rudy nomination means one of two things: (1) LOTS of the GOP base sitting at home on election day; and/or (2) a third party pro-life, pro-gun candidate winning more than 5%.

Keep on fighting the good fight though. AND bragging about your support for the South in the Civil War. Oh that pesky war of norther aggression and its attack on slavery. Just terrible, those Yankees.

Kerik was in good standing when he was reccommended so that aspect is irrelevant. If you claim that somehow rudy knew he had troubles, you didn't say that. I find it much more troubling that clinton would rehire Sandy burgler even after clearly he is a crook. rudy dumped Kerik immediately. but you Libs always stand behind your crooks. we don't. Of course we don't have as many. Yo would probably be without representation if we ran all the crooks out of the Dem party. you know the list is very long. but we have covered that ground before.

and I explained the position of social conservatives: they want to win, they don't want clinton, they want to win the war, they don't like taxes. all the toher stuff is way down the list. Reagan was also divorced. these issues you keep hopig will stick just don't. It is a Dem hope to avoid any talk of your feeble issues which is the real reason you will lose the election - not character, not dressing, not honesty. Taxes and War!

abortion, gays and guns are now in the court's court. who will appoint a lefty and who will try not to? you really think southerners are that dumb. we kept an overwhelmingly large Army at bay for over 4 years once with pride, gumption, tactics and stubbonness, along with a healthy does of courage. I know you Yankees still don't understand and never will. I think you still beleive that gore won the election. and Kerry is a war hero. and clinton is honest.

Bernard Kerik, who Rudy named to literally one of the most important positions in his administration and THEN recommended that he be in charge of the Department of Homeland Security, can now be redefined as a minor figure in Rudy's illustrious NY City reign.

Social Conservatives, who ushered in Reagan's revolution, apparently no longer care about abortion, gay marriage, or serial infidelity in their candidates.

Proud:
consider this - dick morris has never been right about anything in his life

2. no one was paying attention before now anyway. why waste the money. I prefer my candidate to be a little frugal and consider the effectivness of expenditures. Romney is simply throwing money at the problem - a disturbing characteristic.

rudy never considered winning IA and NH essential to his strategy. romney must win to remain competative.

all you moonbats keep trying to claim that bush, cheney, rudy and others are corrupt. If so where is the evidence - and I don;t mean your suspicions or other loony left dogma. where are the indictments, the court cases, the trials, the paper trail, etc.

the clintons had actual factual evidence of several crimes by this time in office, even with a fawning press. they had most of their staff and cabinet in trouble, still do. It is a fiction that bush, cheney and rudy are criminals. It is this confusion over reality and fiction which defines the loony left in this country. It is why you are all now a subject of so many jokes.

wIt's about damn time that Rudy started hitting the airwaves. Romnay's so far ahead in the early states, I'm starting to have a little heartburn here.

"Rudy has brought this crisis on himself by foolishly running no television ads in any of the early primary or caucus states while Romney has advertised for six to eight months. In a classic hare-versus-tortoise scenario, Giuliani waited so long to show his colors on television that Romney may have built up an insurmountable lead in the interim." according to our old pal Dick Morris.

Rudy could still bounce back in Iowa if he gets his act together there and at least make it close.

KOZ -"...Try as hard as you can, you will not be able to paint any other candidate, Dem or Repub, with the corrupt brush that colors the clintons..." With all due repect to you, the list would run (and to my mind, they are all tied): Guliani, Romney, Clinton, Jefferson, Kennedy, Cheney (not a candidate? He's still a crook), anyone endorsing CLinton, anyone endorsing Romney, the Mormon Church, Wqall Street,....

I disagree that the GOP doesn't fear hillary. there is the turnout issue for sure and the downticket aspect. but the general election will never go to anyone as liberal and inexperienced in thinking on their feet as Obama or Edwards. It is simply not feasible. hillary is the witch to beat. On both sides. I will not underestimate her skills.

If you watch the early part of the add describing when New York City was the "crime capital of America" you'll notice a quick shot of a marquee that reads "HAREM" in huge letters. It's quick, but the marquee is the shot - it's what your eyes will immediately focus on.

This is an obvious subliminal play on HARLEM - something easily associated with New York City, crime and, of course, black people.

It's an awful cheap shot that is reminiscent of Bush's "RAT" adds against Gore in 2000.

There is no other reason for that shot, it doesn't convey any other visual information. I suppose we should expect this from the media team he's hired.

I fail to see how a single staff member in a huge organization over more then eight years is evidence of any patttern. I don't know much about my staff either. I think everyone understands this. but if you think that is an issue, I wouldn't suggest you bring it up in the context of clinton, who has the record for staff imprisonment and indictment. Oh that was the other clinton - the dishonest one. you are probably talking about the new, honest clinton this time. the one with all the experience - oh wait, that is the dishonest one again. this is confusing. If only we had some documents to look over.

Is your hypothesis that the poor dumb southerners haven't heard all about rudy's foibles yet? Maybe you misjudge their priorities. ask Pat.

Rudy is out of step with the religious right element of the republican party. That's a fact, not a smear, and is directly related to his personal failings. Which, again, are facts rather than smears. Because they're true. I don't particularly care if he's a bad husband, but YOUR party has traditionally said that matters. So it's rather obviously relevent.

Also, help me understand why we shouldn't talk about Rudy's relationship with Kerik and the business dealings he's had since leaving the mayor's office. The former speaks VERY poorly for Rudy's character judgment, at the very least, and the latter is part of the guy's record. To the extent that either shows direct ethical transgressions, that's again clearly relevent.

In short, unpleasant questions about your candidate are not by definition a "smear." Sorry to be the one to break it to you. Now make sure and get back to bashing Hillary, who I don't support and who won't even win the Democratic nomination -- much to the consteration of Rudy and the GOP.

Anyone else wondering why the other GOP candidates haven't hit Rudy hard over his '94 endorsement of Cuomo in the NY Gubenatorial race? I mean, Cuomo -- who I loved -- was about as liberal as can be and Rudy made a high profile endorsement of the guy during the middle of the Gingrich revolution.

If I was McCain, Romney, etc. I think I would be hammering that home in Iowa and South Carolina. Honestly, can you think of any other serious contender for President who had made such a prominent endorsement of an opposition party member? I can't, at least post the WWII era when quite a few prominent republicans endorsed FDR.

the opposite choice - hillary, who will clearly be the Dem nominee, elicits talk of just how corrupt the dems are willing to accept to win the office. How many scandels will we tolerate? how many lies? how many non-answers? how much inexperience? Will we accept an intern in the white house; at least bill won't touch this one. then we get to the bush did this and that.

So when confronted with real and serious accomplishments by the leading Repub contender, the Dems retort with the usual slander, misfit humor, lies, spin, distortions and avoidance of any discusssion about the other choice in the voting booth.

Only problem is, even the loyal Dems are well aware of what a crook Hillary is, they are just desperate enough to ignore it. Try as hard as you can, you will not be able to paint any other candidate, Dem or Repub, with the corrupt brush that colors the clintons.

And if you want to talk about bimbo eruptions, zouk, rudy was having a very public affaiir with TWO women at one time, while he was still married to his second wife and his children were small. They got to see Daddy kissing other women in public -- on TV. Oh yes, he sure like them women.

Also, zouk, just for your own amusement, you ought to google guiliani in drag and see the 6000 images. He did it every chance he got was so really thorough about it -- shaved his legs, wore nylons and stilettos, tight padded dresses, lots of jewelry and makeup and always a lovely wig.

"[Giuliani's] closet is not crawling with skeletons and blue dresses..."

Oh, it's got a lot more in it than Clinton's ever did... way more.

And aside from his personal issues which are legion, there's also the matter of him claiming credit for stuff that like, other people did.

Like the one who cleaned up crime in the City was Commissioner Bratton. When Rudy tried to take all the credit, Bratton objected a little -- so Rudy fired him -- and brought in Bernie Kerik. Rudy's famous for his judgement, you know:

Kerik was Police Commissioner of the City of New York from 2000 to 2001, under Mayor Rudy Giuliani. In December 2004, George W. Bush nominated Kerik as Secretary of Homeland Security. A week later, Kerik withdrew his acceptance, explaining that he had employed an illegal immigrant as a nanny; subsequently, numerous allegations surfaced which would likely have led to a confirmation battle. In 2006, Kerik pled guilty to two unrelated ethics violations after an investigation by the Bronx District Attorney's Office, and was ordered to pay $221,000. He is currently under Federal investigation: A grand jury issued a multi-count indictment on November 8, 2007 alleging conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud and lying to the IRS. Kerik surrendered to authorities on Friday, November 9, 2007.

How is it that the wife of an impeached president, the policy architect of a 1300-page left-wing health-care fiasco, and the document-shredding stonewaller of a welter of scandals can turn her controversial career and bizarre First Marriage into assets, and not liabilities? How is it that Team Clinton, disgraced and disgraceful, is back for another presidential run?

"First, put up your hands and tell me what you think, and then I'll tell you what I think," she said last week. "I'm for it. I'm against it. I'm for it and against it. And I want to be your president."

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday came out against granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, after weeks of pressure in the presidential race to take a position on a now-failed ID plan from her home state governor.

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer announced Wednesday he was abandoning a plan to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, but said that the federal government had "lost control" of its borders and left states to deal with the consequences.

""They're not going to find perfection but they're going to find somebody who has dealt with crisis almost on a regular basis and has had results."

Amen to the former (let the R primaries dig all that up over and over) but the latter makes no sense. The only NYC 'crisis' that people are really aware of outside of NY State occurred on 9/11. Does the definition of 'regular' now include 'once?'

Of course, in R eyes having D's in positions of leadership automatically constitutes a crisis, perhaps even a constitutional one.

"...the best example of conservative government in the country???" That's a heck of stretch of the definition of 'conservative.' Somehow, I don't think the folks in Kansas would recognize NYC government as being 'conservative.' Slightly to the right of Karl Marx, maybe.

It really IS amazing that Rudy was able to reduce crime and invigorate the economy during that terrible period in the 1990s when crime rates everwhere were going up and the economy was in a decade-long recession. Wait a second...

Ahh, yes, the positive intro ad. Won't we be looking back on those wistfully in a couple months. After, of course, we find out that Rudy raised taxes a zillion times to fund abortions, abandoned the mother of his children to go live with a couple of gay guys in an Upper East Side apartment, and would likely negotiate with the terrorists while wearing women's clothing, all of which will be set to weepy opera music straight from The Godfather II.

I just did a bit of Wikipedia research -- Grover Cleveland was elected Mayor of Buffalo, NY, in 1881 and President in 1884, but he was elected Governor of NY state in 1882. Rudy is no Grover Cleveland.

Cute, JD. It wasn't a "legislature." It was a CITY council. As much as Rudy would like to paint himself as some brilliant manager, he ran a CITY and was a beneficiary of the 90s boom more than anything else.

This is a good ad, and it hilights one of the drawing points of Rudy: he saved NYC from the nightmare that was Dinkens. And he did it working with a Democratic legislature (as he'd likely have in Jan 09, if he wins).

It was a good ad. He demonstrates that he is effective and experienced and that the facts are not up to interpretation.

for an R to get elected in NYC and them make progess against an All Dem council is nothing short of a miracle. the kind of miracle we will need against the Pelosi/Reid do-nothings.

there are many buffoons who think rudy is running on 911 only. I think this certainly dispels that notion. He is running on competence, experience, effectiveness and appropriate public stature. His closet is not crawling with skeletons and blue dresses that need to go to the cleaners.